On 2/16/22 6:58 PM, Mathias Nyman wrote: >>>>> The crash reports I have seen are pointing to >>>>> >>>>> usb_remove_hcd()->xhci_stop()->xhci_reset() >>>> >>>> Ok, so xhci_stop() and xhci_shutdown() both may call xhci_reset() with interrupts >>>> disabled and spinlock held. In both these cases we're not that interested in the >>>> outcome of xhci_reset(). >>>> >>>> But during probe we call xhci_reset() with interrupts enabled without spinlock, >>>> and here we really care about it succeeding. >>>> I'm also guessing reset could take a longer time during probe due to possible recent >>>> BIOS handover, or firmware loading etc. >>>> >>>> So how about passing a timeout value to xhci_reset()? >>>> Give it 10 seconds during probe, and 250ms in the other cases. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for this suggestion. >>> >>> This sounds better compared to the quirks approach. xhci_resume() also seems >>> to be calling xhci_reset() in the hibernation path, I believe we should treat >>> this like probe()/startup case and give larger timeout. >>> >> I will test the below patch as per Mathias suggestion. >> >> Thanks, >> Pavan >> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c >> index df3522d..031fe90 100644 >> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c >> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c >> @@ -762,7 +762,7 @@ static int xhci_exit_test_mode(struct xhci_hcd *xhci) >> } >> pm_runtime_allow(xhci_to_hcd(xhci)->self.controller); >> xhci->test_mode = 0; >> - return xhci_reset(xhci); >> + return xhci_reset(xhci, false); > > Maybe just pass the timeout value directly to xhci_reset(). > Looks like readl_poll_timeout_atomic() uses u64 for timeout_us, > makes sense to use the same. > > Sergey also pointed out xhci_handshake() incorrectly uses a signed integer for timeouts. > This could be changed to u64 as well. > > I'll write a patch that does all above You mean I don't need to respin my xhci_handshake() patch? I'm happy to do that if that's a prevailing opinion. :-) > -Mathias MBR, Sergey
